<VV> EM wiring question

Wed Feb 11 21:52:24 EST 2015

That wire is part of a air conditioning wire harness.  When the high beams are activated, going from memory, I believe that it activated a relay that kicked the air conditioner fan down from the high speed to the medium speed.  The reason that I remember this is because I had one in my 1962 air conditioned Monza, that I am restoring, and it is one of the "missing" wires, that made it into a box a parts, and now the whole box of parts has gone missing.  Possibly you have found my missing wire... LOL.. 
Paul in CT

-----Original Message-----
>From: aeroned via VirtualVairs <virtualvairs at corvair.org>
>Sent: Feb 11, 2015 3:13 PM
>To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
>Subject: <VV> EM wiring question
>
>
>I replaced the fuse box wiring harness in a 64 with an earlier harness. There's an extra wire, yellow, coming off the high beam switch plug that goes to the headlight switxh. This wire is not in a loom, it's about 4 feet long and has a single female plug at the end. It only has power when the head l ights are on. Any idea what it would be for?
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
>
>
>-------- Original message --------
>From: J Bruce Weeks via VirtualVairs <virtualvairs at corvair.org> 
>Date:02/11/2015  1:14 PM  (GMT-06:00) 
>To: Jim Becker <mr.jebecker at gmail.com>, virtualvairs at corvair.org 
>Subject: Re: <VV> Anti-seize on wheel nuts 
>
>Yeah, it was both a high and low point in my career to be called before the NHSTA board. It started after several deaths in a three-month time span from flying wheels. The investigation was titled something like "Wheel Fastener Design Inadequacies." or some such. It quickly moved away from that as it became obvious from the data that the wheels will stay on if properly maintained. Some were written off to poor maintenance, bearing failures, driver error, etc. The finding stated that the designs were adequate but that the requirements for retorquing the wheel nuts varied widely between manufacturers. So we were charged to come up with an industry standard from the manufacturer's side. The fleets, however, did not want to retorque so soon because they were union shops and only a mechanic at a depot could do the work. The fleets wanted us to push the retorque requirement out to 600-700 miles. It needed to be much sooner, closer to 125-150 miles. Only way to increase the interva
 l
>  would be to use a much higher initial torque which would exceed the studs' strength. The main issue is that there is always something in the joint that gets worn away during initial operation: paint, rust, dirt, etc. a 22 mm wheel stud is stretched 0.021" at 550 ft-lbs of torque. Paint is specified not to exceed 0.007". Take a dual wheel set and you have four paint surfaces on two wheels plus two brake drum faces that's 6 X 0.007" = 0.042! Twice the stud stretch.  With flat face wheels (as opposed to the old Budd mount system with ball seat nuts) wheels are held in place as if they are a fully engaged clutch. The "pressure" developed by the stud tension clamps the clutch together with enough force to resist slippage at the face during full brake lock-up. It takes 350 ft-lbs minimum WITH A NEW SYSTEM. Once rusty or if hardened anti-seize clogs the threads, the torque to achieve correct tension goes up, sometimes by a lot. But the mechanic can only measure torque. So he clic
 k
> s his wrench and walks away. In about 250-300 miles, measurable nut torque has dropped by 50%. And so has the stud tension. It is then below required clamp load. The wheels slip a bit during braking, abrade more material out of the joint and you know where it goes from there. Thus the need for clean, lightly lubricated threads and a retorque interval of about 150 miles. J. Bruce Weeks, 
>
>      From: Jim Becker <mr.jebecker at gmail.com>
>To: J Bruce Weeks <jbruceweeks at yahoo.com>; virtualvairs at corvair.org 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 12:08 PM
>Subject: Re: <VV> Anti-seize on wheel nuts
>   
>That is a disturbingly high percentage.  If you consider that a brake job 
>(or new set of tires or whatever) on the typical tractor involves 10 "truck 
>wheel end disturbances ", that means that 1 in 50 will loose a wheel.  With 
>10 million large trucks in this country, if half (or even a quarter) of them 
>get their wheels disturbed in a year, you are talking about a lot of flying 
>wheels every day.
>
>Jim Becker
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>From: J Bruce Weeks via VirtualVairs
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 5:33 AM
>To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
>Subject:  Anti-seize on wheel nuts
>
>
>Only 0.2% of truck wheel end disturbances (any reason a wheel is removed and 
>replaced) at the time resulted in a wheel-off. 98% of those wheel-offs 
>occurred within 600 miles.
>
>
>
>   
>_______________________________________________
>This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are the property
>of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
>This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
>Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
>Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
>_______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
>This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are the property
>of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:vv-help at corvair.org
>This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America, http://www.corvair.org/
>Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
>Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
> _______________________________________________